ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Tracheostomies are associated with high rates of complications and preventable harm. Safe tracheostomy management requires highly functioning teams and systems, but health care providers are poorly equipped with tracheostomy knowledge and resources. In situ simulation has been used as a quality improvement tool to audit multidisciplinary team emergency response in the actual clinical environment where care is delivered but has been underexplored for tracheostomy care. METHODS: From July 2021 to May 2022, the study team conducted in situ simulations of a tracheostomy emergency scenario at Montefiore Medical Center to identify human errors and latent safety threats (LSTs). Simulations included structured debriefs as well as audiovisual recording that allowed for blind rating of these human errors and LSTs. Provider knowledge deficits were further characterized using pre-simulation quizzes. RESULTS: Twelve human errors and 15 LSTs were identified over 20 simulations with 88 participants overall. LSTs were divided into the following categories: communication, equipment, and infection control. Only 50.0% of teams successfully replaced the tracheostomy tube within the scenario's five-minute time limit. In addition, knowledge gaps were highly prevalent, with a median pre-simulation quiz score of 46% (interquartile range 36-64) among participants. CONCLUSION: An in situ simulation-based quality improvement approach shed light on human errors and LSTs associated with tracheostomy care across multiple settings in one health system. This method of engaging frontline health care provider key stakeholders will inform the development, adaptation, and implementation of interventions.
Subject(s)
Medical Errors , Tracheostomy , HumansABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Over the last several decades simulation, in both graduate and undergraduate emergency medicine education, has continued to develop as a leading and highly effective teaching modality. Limited research exists to evaluate the efficacy of low-fidelity (table-top) simulation, as compared to high-fidelity standards, as it relates to medical knowledge learning outcomes. We sought to assess the efficacy of a low-fidelity simulation modality in undergraduate emergency medicine education, based on quantitative medical knowledge learning outcomes. METHODS: A prospective, randomized, crossover-control study comparing objective medical knowledge learning outcomes between simulation modalities. Analysis was designed to evaluate for the statistical equivalence of learning outcomes between the two cohorts. This was done by comparing a calculated 95% confidence interval (CI) around the mean difference in post-test scores, between experimental and control modalities, to a pre-established equivalence margin. RESULTS: Primary outcomes evaluating student performance on post-test examinations demonstrated a total cohort CI (95% CI, -0.22 and 0.68). Additional course-subject subgroup analysis demonstrated non-inferior CIs with: Shortness of Breath (95% CI, -0.35 and 1.27); Chest Pain (95% CI, -0.53 and.94); Abdominal Pain (95% CI, -0.88 and 1.17); Cardiovascular Shock (95% CI, -0.04 and 1.29). Secondary outcome analysis was done to evaluate medical knowledge acquisition by comparing the difference in pre and post-test examination between the cohorts. CI of the full cohort ranged from (95% CI, -0.14 and 0.96). CONCLUSION: The student's performance on quantitative medical-knowledge assessment was equivalent between the high-fidelity control and low-fidelity experimental simulation groups. Analysis of knowledge acquisition between the two groups also demonstrated statistical equivalence.
